Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al

Filing 1184

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Re Apples Motions In Limine filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Declaration Of Cyndi Wheeler In Support Of Apples Administrative Motions To File Documents Under Seal Re Apples Motions In Limine, #2 [Proposed] Order Granting Apple Inc.s Administrative Motion To File Documents Under Seal Re Apples Motions In Limine, #3 Apples Motions In Limine, #4 Declaration Of Jason Bartlett In Support Of Apples Motions In Limine, #5 Exhibit 1, #6 Exhibit 3, #7 Exhibit 4, #8 Exhibit 5, #9 Exhibit 6, #10 Exhibit 7, #11 Exhibit 8, #12 Exhibit 9, #13 Proposed Order)(Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 7/5/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
12
13

APPLE INC., a California corporation,
Plaintiff,

14
15

v.

18

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
Korean corporation; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation; and
SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS
AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company,

19

Defendants.

16
17

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING APPLE’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3167428

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
APPLE INC.’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE

1

Apple has moved in limine, pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, 403, 802,

2

1002, and 1003 to exclude certain evidence of Samsung. The Court finds that the evidence

3

offered by Samsung fails to meet the standard of admissibility under the Federal Rules of

4

Evidence. The Court therefore GRANTS Apple’s motion in its entirety.

5

1.

The 035 tablet mock-up and photographs thereof are excluded under Federal

6

Rules of Evidence 401, 402, and 403 as irrelevant and having a substantial risk of unfair

7

prejudice, confusing the issues, and misleading the jury.

8
9
10
11

2.

Evidence and argument regarding non-prior art Apple or Samsung design patents

are excluded under Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, and 403 as irrelevant and having a
substantial risk of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, and misleading the jury.
3.

Evidence and argument regarding claimed prior art devices and documents that

12

do not qualify as prior art are excluded under Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, and 403 as

13

irrelevant and having a substantial risk of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, and misleading

14

the jury. This evidence includes but is not limited to the specific devices and documents

15

discussed in Apple’s Motions in Limine. Testimony on this issue is also excluded under Federal

16

Rules of Evidence 1002 and 1003.

17

4.

Testimony or exhibits regarding misleading partial views of patented designs are

18

excluded under Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, and 403 as irrelevant and having a

19

substantial risk of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, and misleading the jury.

20

5.

Evidence and argument that Samsung received legal advice regarding the

21

patents-in-suit are excluded under Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, and 403 as irrelevant and

22

having a substantial risk of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, and misleading the jury.

23

Testimony on this issue is also excluded under Federal Rules of Evidence 1002 and 1003.

24

6.

Evidence or argument as to how courts or tribunals have in other cases

25

construed—or ruled on the validity, enforceability, or infringement of—any Apple or Samsung

26

patent is excluded under Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, and 403 as irrelevant and having a

27

substantial risk of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, and misleading the jury. This evidence

28

is also excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 802 as inadmissible hearsay.
PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING APPLE’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3167428

1

7.

Evidence or argument as to statements allegedly made by Steve Jobs to Walter

2

Isaacson is excluded under Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, and 403 as irrelevant and having

3

a substantial risk of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, and misleading the jury. This

4

evidence is also excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 802 as inadmissible hearsay.

5

8.

Evidence or argument as to the parties’ alleged corporate behavior or financial

6

circumstances unrelated to this case, including but not limited to the size of Apple’s tax bill, the

7

compensation paid to Apple’s employees, working conditions related to the manufacture of

8

Apple’s products, or the overall revenues, profits, cash on hand, or wealth of either party is

9

excluded under Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, and 403 as irrelevant and having a

10
11

substantial risk of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, and misleading the jury.
9.

Evidence or argument that Samsung’s “profits” are anything less than the total

12

economic profits recognized on a consolidated basis by Samsung is excluded under Federal Rules

13

of Evidence 401, 402, and 403 as irrelevant and having a substantial risk of unfair prejudice,

14

confusing the issues, and misleading the jury.

15

10. Evidence or argument regarding the financial terms of Apple’s acquisition of

16

Fingerworks is excluded under Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, and 403 as irrelevant and

17

having a substantial risk of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, and misleading the jury.

18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: ____

_, 2012

By:
Honorable Lucy H. Koh
United States Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING APPLE’S MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
L ASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
C
sf-3167428

2